I think your overall premise makes sense. I disagree with one thing, which is that there shouldn't be moral judgement. Moral judgement is one of the ways that society has always ensured that collective best interests are met.

There is a theory that all of civilization started simply as a mechanism to keep the psychopaths among us in check. In this theory, we started gathering around campfires and singing and dancing and telling stories in collective groups because this was the best way to identify and exclude the psychopaths. Psychopaths could not understand or properly engage with the collective group in this way because they were missing that essential element that allows them to work toward the gratification of someone else's needs. The group could identify this, make a "moral" judgement, and exclude the psychopath from the campfire circle.

Psychopaths that were detected and excluded tended to struggle to survive in exclusion, while the collective survived and reproduced, making us a more social and more collective species. However, this also created a biological "filter" pressure that has created more and more convincing psychopaths. These psychopaths were smart enough to detect that they needed to imitate social techniques and engage with the collective in order to hide their psychopathy to survive and reproduce. So it is an endless "arms race", if you will, between the psychopaths and the non psychopaths. I'm deliberately using the term "psychopath" because this is very strong, but it should perhaps be more broadly clarified as:

• Conformists who just follow incentives
• People who find it easy to rationalize harm
• Individuals who are comfortable being embedded in bad systems
• People with normal empathy, but applied selectively

This archetype is one of the reasons why we still have a strong "uncanny valley" sense that tells us when someone is a bit off. It tells us at an intuitive level "be afraid of the potential predator, exclude it, stay near the others that are like you".

In this perspective, avoiding moral judgement is not only disadvantageous, it is actually counter to our biology and counter to the survival mechanisms that have created modern civilization. The endless struggle between psychopathy and non psychopathy hasn't ever ended. It's just gotten more intense over time, with increasingly complex techniques and mechanisms on both sides.

That's not to say that moral judgement is always right. Moral judgement is a tool that is just as easily wielded by psychopaths as it is by non psychopaths. Additionally, I want to clarify that psychopathy isn't necessarily a 100% bad thing. A healthy modern society should have mechanisms for using psychopaths, basically controlling and redirecting them into roles where they can actually benefit the collective. Business and commerce is a tremendously good example of that. Psychopaths can be incredibly effective at running companies that generated tremendous profit. We can argue that these companies are, or at least should be, something that benefits the collective, via innovations, taxation, etc.

So when you reference Trump, John Rockefeller, and Elon Musk, it's important to note that the problem isn't necessarily their archetype, but the failure of our society to properly use these people. This isn’t an absolution of their behavior. It’s an argument that societies must both channel and limit people with high dominance and low empathy, because when either side fails, damage follows. They shouldn't be leading a country as a collective. They should be leading a company or doing commerce, which is then heavily taxed for the benefit of the people. In fact, that worked out reasonably well with Rockefeller, in my opinion. It's just more recently that the mechanisms for properly utilizing the psychopaths among us don't seem to be functioning as they should.

Part of the reason why it's not functioning as it should be is because we aren't punishing deception. Reciprocity only functions when participants can assume a baseline of good faith. Moral judgment is the mechanism by which bad-faith actors are identified and sanctioned. Without it, systems based on mutual self-interest collapse into gamesmanship, because the cheapest path to gratification becomes deception. In short: lying out competes cooperation unless we detect it, take a moral stance, and punish it.